161–170 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US doesn't have any partners anymore, except for some small countries like Hungary and Israel.
I think you'd be surprised how much intel sharing and cooperation happens behind the political curtains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it's very likely counterfactually better than USSR (now Russian) or Chinese hegemony. Why is it either or the other? Just because the US happens to turn inwards and stop acting like the world police, doesn't mean that other countries suddenly start dreaming of world domination. China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas.
> China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas. Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small. They solve such problems by doing the one thing they have always done: expanding. Successful conquest temporarily mitigates internal problems, injustices and inefficiencies. Video: The History of Russia: Every Year - https://youtu.be/uCIp3CF33ms
Do you know how literally any country got the size it is today? They started out small. Some of them are still small today, but they might be larger tomorrow. Some of them will be smaller tomorrow. This is how the world has function and continues to function. Not sure how this could be surprising to anyone out there, even less how you think someone wouldn't understand this very basic fact about countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am an American and didn’t vote for this bullsh*t. Isn't the whole principle about democracy and freedom that you all stick together no matter what political party/parties is in power? If you're just throwing your hands up in the air because your party isn't the one in control, what kind of democracy is that? The whole point is working together with opponents for common goals. Otherwise, may I interest you in an i…
> The whole point is working together with opponents for common goals. When your opponent wants you dead, it's a different story! I am just exercising my right to self-defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas. Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small. They solve such problems by doing the one thing they have always done: expanding. Successful conquest temporarily mitigates internal problems, injustices and inefficiencies. Video: The History of Russia: Every Year - https://youtu.be/uCIp3CF33ms
> Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small. Do you know how literally any country got the size it is today? They started out small. Some of them are still small today, but they might be larger tomorrow. Some of them will be smaller tomorrow. This is how the world has function and continues to function. Not sure how this could be surprising to anyone out there, even less how you think someone wouldn…
If you are trying to make a counterpoint, try again, hopefully with an actual argument.
And maybe, maybe, you take into account that the size of Russia and its expansionism are on a whole other level and still ongoing, and that other countries are not like that at all, not even remotely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it. > 2. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship. I have to leave in a minute, but maybe you can explain what you mean? 1 and 2 are in conflict, no? > If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it. Do you mean that when the US' public can't hear from the US pa…
Yes your interpretation is correct, and I think it answers your first question. The idea that Americans are unreachable is false. Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount. All of America's most influential cities lean liberal. The most influential right wing media is social media, and left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there. The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of as…
> Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount.
> left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there
> The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of assuming what it's owned.
Secondly, the US populace will get hit harder than Europe. That begs the question why the US own voices shouldn't be the first. And if they fail, how would the EU do that better?
Long story short, you might be right that the EU should be more proactive, maybe. Their weak voice might be partly attributed to their limited geopolitical agenda. But, even if their voice could and should be louder, I have big doubts it would make a difference.
_____
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small. Do you know how literally any country got the size it is today? They started out small. Some of them are still small today, but they might be larger tomorrow. Some of them will be smaller tomorrow. This is how the world has function and continues to function. Not sure how this could be surprising to anyone out there, even less how you think someone wouldn…
WTF??? If you are trying to make a counterpoint, try again, hopefully with an actual argument. And maybe, maybe , you take into account that the size of Russia and its expansionism are on a whole other level and still ongoing, and that other countries are not like that at all, not even remotely.
Yes, today Russia is trying to expand, which they've done before, like most countries in the world. Not sure what makes them special in that regard.
Did any country start out large? Since your main point seems to have been that Russia started out small, in contrast to some other country you're trying to reference that apparently started out large, but I'm not sure which one you're trying to reference here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you'd be surprised how much intel sharing and cooperation happens behind the political curtains.
This was starting to change even during Trump 1. It's unlikely to last throughout this current term.
What is your source?
We’re entering a multipolar world. That means more border wars, not less. Everything I’ve seen indicates more demand for American military and intelligence sharing, not less, despite the paradox therein.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WTF??? If you are trying to make a counterpoint, try again, hopefully with an actual argument. And maybe, maybe , you take into account that the size of Russia and its expansionism are on a whole other level and still ongoing, and that other countries are not like that at all, not even remotely.
How is that different from how US acted after 1776? Or China during Qin dynasty? Yes, today Russia is trying to expand, which they've done before, like most countries in the world. Not sure what makes them special in that regard. Did any country start out large? Since your main point seems to have been that Russia started out small, in contrast to some other country you're trying to reference that apparently started…
Sure. Correct. Wishing for the failure of the Pax Americana is cheering on the return of wars of conquest. First and foremost by the great powers.
Russia isn't special. It was–like every other ordinary country–previously restrained. Dissolving the rules that restrained it also dissolves the rules that restrained every other current and aspiring global or regional power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's popular to hate the US but I'd like to know what country you think would be better at the role of global hegemon. What country would you suggest would do a better job? Be specific.
It’s a flawed question. The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent.
Wishing upon a star that humans were better is not a solution.
Revoking the Pax Americana frees America to pursue more wars of conquest. Not fewer. It's a revocation of the rules-based international order that America (and the former Soviet Union) put in place following WWII.
It similarly frees every other wannabe global and regional hegemony to assert their spheres of influence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that different from how US acted after 1776? Or China during Qin dynasty? Yes, today Russia is trying to expand, which they've done before, like most countries in the world. Not sure what makes them special in that regard. Did any country start out large? Since your main point seems to have been that Russia started out small, in contrast to some other country you're trying to reference that apparently started…
> Yes, today Russia is trying to expand, which they've done before, like most countries in the world. Not sure what makes them special in that regard Sure. Correct. Wishing for the failure of the Pax Americana is cheering on the return of wars of conquest. First and foremost by the great powers. Russia isn't special. It was–like every other ordinary country–previously restrained. Dissolving the rules that restrained…
So because someone doesn't want the US as a world police, means they want some other country as world police? Can't people just wish/want no one to be world police?
I never understood the lack of nuance in American politics and in lots of conversations with Americans. Just because you don't like A, doesn't mean you suddenly love B, no matter how much you see them as direct antonyms or whatever, what's up with trying to argue in this way? What conversation and discussions are improved by this sort of behavior? What is your goal with doing that, some sort of gotcha?